Digital BW, The Print

I've been reading the recent Just Starting thread with interest but
seeing I have different needs/questions/concerns, I'm starting a new
thread.

I've always used labs for digital B&W prints (although I did some
darkroom print back in college) with OK-to-great results.  Now it's
about time to start doing my own.  I have very good Photoshop skills.
 The things I've read about dedicated B&W carbon inksets sound
promising for excellent quality.  I have no suitable printer now, so
I'm starting from sctatch.  The printer will be dedicated to B&W from
day one, no color.  

- I want to keep costs down so letter size seems to make the most sense. 
- I want the the system I choose to be controllable, so I can
eventually learn much (everything?) about printing. 
- I'd like a relatively recent printer as I expect to move to Vista
soon (having longterm problems with XP, I feel like anything would be
better).  I've seen too much hardware thrown away over the years due
to lack of drivers.
- Refillable ink cartridges are appealing.  CIS may be in the future.

The MIS UT-EZ for the Epson C8X line looks appealing but it's not
clear if it allows for real control once you get beyond the "EZ"
stage.  Also, does it actually work properly in the latest C88/C88+
models. 

The Epson R200/220 with MIS inks seems to definitely be controllable
but will these printers be supported in the future (Vista)?  The more
recent R260 evidently uses different carts.

If the C88 is feasible, what's the difference in the "+" model.  Radio
Shack has the C88 on the shelf for only $39.95 right now and I think
the C88+ is about $65 at Epson.  The 88+ is listed at Microsoft as
Vista compatible (with no driver yet).

Please help me sort this out.
Thanks
Mark

On Behalf Of markebrauer:

>... have very good Photoshop skills.

Image editing is a big part of why I'm using digital output.  It's
interesting how many different types of workflows can accomplish the same
thing in PS.  

> ... dedicated B&W carbon inksets sound promising for excellent quality.

For a given level of technology, the dedicated B&W systems can usually get
something more out of the printer by sacrificing full color.  With the 2400,
the number of inks has reached the point where still very good B&W can be
had from the standard color ink arrangement.  In large format the 3800
finally has enough to do both matte and glossy with full color also.  I
would not want to be limited to just one type of paper.

Third party inks, whether B&W or color, can save you a lot of money.  

In terms of fade resistance, the MIS and Cone B&W pigments are the best I've
tested and usually beat the Epson OEM inkset in my fade tests.  (The only
potentially significant fade test I've seen where MIS and Cone current
generation of inks did not beat Epson OEM inks was with respect to the
magenta pigment.  I now use Epson LM in the non-blended inksets like the
4K+cm approach. But that is not where a person just starting digital B&W
should start.)

> ... The printer will be dedicated to B&W from day one, no color. 

>- I want to keep costs down so letter size seems to make the most sense. 

C88 or 220 (The 220 is now discontinued; however, the 340 works the same and
is still available.)

>- I want the system I choose to be controllable, 
> so I can eventually learn much (everything?) about printing. 

The C88 is the easiest and cheapest.  

On the other hand, a basic hextone ink arrangement like with the 220/340 has
a longer learning curve that can take you to the top of the B&W printing
workflows.  

(If and when the 260 and 1440 have good third party carts and chips readily
available, the 260 will be probably be the starting place.)

For one step up, to 13" paper, I like the 2200.  A good refurbished unit can
be an excellent buy.

>- I'd like a relatively recent printer as I expect to move 
> to Vista soon ...

I don't know what problems might come up.  On the PC side, I have had
reasonable luck with support for Epson printers as long as I've need doing
this.  But, I would hesitate to go back further than the Epson 2200.

>- Refillable ink cartridges are appealing. CIS may be in the future.

The CIS is nice if you do a lot of printing with the same inkset.  I
experiment with too much to make it work for me.  (Note that a CIS may have
the same problems as the large format printers if they are not used.  See
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/4K+.pdf at page 4.  The best cure is an
auto-print system as sold by MIS at http://www.inksupply.com/cobra.cfm#ap )



>The MIS UT-EZ for the Epson C8X line looks appealing 

It's easy and economical.

>but it's not clear if it allows for real control once you get 
>beyond the "EZ" stage.

It has a shorter growth path than the 220/340 hextone and 2200 k2 (close to
a hextone) have.  

> Also, does it actually work properly in the latest C88/C88+ models. 

They seem to be very close.  

I think you'll have a good chance of getting a good print quickly.

Above that, you'll often be better off if you can use QTR "Create ICC" to
make custom profiles.  You can even make these with just a flatbed scanner
and the QTR program.  See http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/Making_B-W_ICCs.htm
Of course, you'll want to be able to get positive feedback from the system
without having to learn any more software.  I think the C88+ should be able
to do that for you.


>The Epson R200/220 with MIS inks seems to definitely be controllable

Yes.


>but will these printers be supported in the future (Vista)?

I don't know, but I expect they will be.


> The more recent R260 evidently uses different carts.

Yes.  It's too soon to buy it for B&W.


>If the C88 is feasible, what's the difference in the "+" model.

In terms of apparent printing characteristics with Win XP, almost none from
what I can tell. 


> The 88+ is listed at Microsoft as Vista compatible (with no driver yet).

That might be worth something.



Hope this helps.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:

> In large format the 3800
> finally has enough to do both matte and glossy with full color also.  


Paul, is not the 3800 like the 4800 considered a medium format printer?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "markebrauer"
<markebrauer@...> wrote:

> - I'd like a relatively recent printer as I expect to move to Vista
> soon (having longterm problems with XP, I feel like anything would be
> better).  I've seen too much hardware thrown away over the years due
> to lack of drivers.

Mark,

Vista, like previous operating system has teething problems. Right
now, a lot of drivers are missing simply because the equipment mfg's
(from sound cards to printers) have not made them available.

I don't know what problems you've had with XP, but the reaction of
some people who've installed Vista make me think that I'll wait for
Service Pack 1 (SP1) before I even consider it. Vista will slow down
your computer compared to XP, is memory hungry and still has several
bugs although updates have already been released this week.

Consider Vista as jut an upgrade to XP and posssibly the last OS
change for a very long time to come.

Cheers,
Andre

On Feb 3, 2007, at 4:06 AM, Andre Moreau wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "markebrauer"
> <markebrauer@...> wrote:
>> ... I'd like a relatively recent printer as I expect to move to  
>> Vista soon ...[snip]
>
> ... I ... think that I'll wait for Service Pack 1 (SP1) before I  
> even consider it. ...[snip]


Could you combine these two migrate-to-Vista strategies if you have  
two hard disks in a Vista-ready computer? I.e., continue to run XT on  
one hard disk and print to your old printer from it, but also install  
and start to run Vista on the other hard disk and print to a new  
printer from it when drivers for it become available for Vista? That  
is, don't switch from XT to Vista, just let Vista gradually out grow  
XT while you gradually learn how to use Vista instead?

Such a migration worked for me on a Mac desktop a few years ago when  
the Mac's OS 9 was succeeded by the Mac's Unix-based OS X, which was  
at first hard to live with, especially in regard to printing. Since  
then the two-hard-drive Alienware notebooks have caught my eye. And  
I'm wondering about the feasibility of trying the same thing with XT  
and Vista on one of them (together with a supplementary image monitor).
--
Sam








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sam McCandless wrote:
> 
> 
> On Feb 3, 2007, at 4:06 AM, Andre Moreau wrote:
> 
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>, "markebrauer"
>> <markebrauer@...> wrote:
>>> ... I'd like a relatively recent printer as I expect to move to
>>> Vista soon ...[snip]
>>
>> ... I ... think that I'll wait for Service Pack 1 (SP1) before I
>> even consider it. ...[snip]
> 
> Could you combine these two migrate-to-Vista strategies if you have
> two hard disks in a Vista-ready computer? I.e., continue to run XT on
> one hard disk and print to your old printer from it, but also install
> and start to run Vista on the other hard disk and print to a new
> printer from it when drivers for it become available for Vista? That
> is, don't switch from XT to Vista, just let Vista gradually out grow
> XT while you gradually learn how to use Vista instead?

Technically, yes.  The machine I'm posting this from is running Windows XP,
and Windows Vista (Beta2) installed on an alternate disk drive.  I have no trouble
dual-booting Vista and XP, and each can access files in each other's filesystem.
However, it's unwieldy and, while I expect to upgrade to Windows Vista, it
won't be before my peripherals are supported (Epson R2400 and Nikon LS9000 are
the key ones, and Epson 4490 is desirable).  Application support for Vista is
still spotty; at least the Java plug-in in Firefox kicks Vista out of Aero mode,
for example.

I'm still primarily running Windows XP.

Dana

> - I'd like a relatively recent printer as I expect to move to Vista
> soon (having longterm problems with XP, I feel like anything would be
> better).  

I've found XP 100% stable in a half dozen PCs since it first came out,
and I use lots of heavy duty applications, having nothing more than
seat-of-pants learning (I don't even read documentation). If you're
having trouble with XP it's not likely due to the OS. I think a lot of
folks run into trouble with mailorder-house and "custom-built" PCs. I
like both Compaq and Sony because they don't skimp on details. 

XP does suffer when one installs extra firewalls (two typically
conflict). My DSL provides one level of protection already...no virus
problems since 1999 (frequent unnoticed background scans by EZ
Antivirus). If you're running anything from Symantec or playing with
your registries, that may explain your problems.

XP wants 1G to work reasonably well with CS2, and Vista's going to
demand a lot more. As well, you need an additional hard drive as
you'll jam up C immediately if you also browse and use Word. I use two
external 120Gs, one being a backup and more dedicated to business files. 

CIS systems may or may not economize..if you're a very heavy user,
maybe. MIS offers refillable carts, which I may switch to...though
there are reports of fussiness and unreliability. I've noticed less
UT7 clogging when I leave the printer on than when I turn it off
between sessions.

Minolta was mentioned. The 5400 was a great, slow, reasonably reliable
, honest  machine: the Nikon-fast 5400II was fragile, junk inside, and
a reason  Minolta deserved to be run out of the business. I owned two,
replacing them with a much-superior Nikon V (same speed, same image
quality, built like a truck, better film flatness than either Minolta
model). For scanning B&W negs I recommend Vuescan...Nikonscan's also
good (as was Minolta's app) but silver B&W film requires an extra step
in post processing that's not necessary with Vuescan. With Nikon and
film strips you'll want the hard-to-find optional film strip carrier,
which is a pain to use but can be a big help with B&W silver
film...it's the way to assure flat end-of-strip frames.

At 08:35 AM Sunday 2/4/2007, you wrote:
>Minolta was mentioned. The 5400 was a great, slow, reasonably reliable
>, honest machine: the Nikon-fast 5400II was fragile, junk inside, and
>a reason Minolta deserved to be run out of the business. I owned two,
>replacing them with a much-superior Nikon V (same speed, same image
>quality, built like a truck, better film flatness than either Minolta
>model).

I have the Minolta SE5400 - great resolution, but terrible depth of field. I have images - many images - that are always soft in some area, the grain unfocussed - due to the shallow depth of field. Apparently the higher the resolution, the lower the depth of field.

But you can get good A2 prints out of the scans - and I've had grainless A2 prints from Tech Pan (extraordinary film) scanned with this machine. I agree that the Nikon's probably overall a better bet unless you can get a good 5400 second-hand.

Richard

--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com (Photos web site)
http://warkworth.vze.com/ (Warkworth photo essay)
http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/ (Recent work) 

   "Ya know, Mo, my mom once said something that really stuck with me. She
   said 'Homer, your a big disappointment' and God bless her soul,
   she was really onto something."
   --Homer Simpson

Apparently the higher the resolution, the lower the depth of field.
> 
> But you can get good A2 prints out of the scans - 

Richard, that's an interesting thought but I don't know how it could
be correct...depth of focus would have to do with lens and aperture,
and your scanner has essentially one fixed equivalent of each (I think). 

It MIGHT be that if your higher resolution scans take longer, the
autofocus has more time to respond more accurately. The Nikon needs
1.5 minutes per scan at most, at 4000ppi with Ice/Infared. 

The biggest prints I've made from 35 have been slightly cropped 12X18,
and they're sharper than I'd expect from an enlarger, particularly in
the corners.

I'll have to try Tech Pan. Is it still available? I just shot some
Acros, rated 200 (push +1) with R09 (Rodinal...not normally thought of
as a "push" developer, ordinarily thought of as a grainy, edgy 
developer)...incredible sharpness, fine grain evident at 11X17. I
think a little grain adds to the impression of sharpness in a print,
but I don't do many portraits.

At 09:22 AM Sunday 2/4/2007, you wrote:
>Apparently the higher the resolution, the lower the depth of field.
>
>Richard, that's an interesting thought but I don't know how it could
>be correct...depth of focus would have to do with lens and aperture,
>and your scanner has essentially one fixed equivalent of each (I think). 

Hmmm ... I'm sure I read that on this list sometime ago. It may be an internet myth - apologies if I perpetuated an incorrect statement.

>The biggest prints I've made from 35 have been slightly cropped 12X18,
>and they're sharper than I'd expect from an enlarger, particularly in
>the corners.

I've found the opposite with my 5400 - maybe mine is faulty in some way. I do find that my 35mm 5400 scans are superior at 12x18 to my 6mp SLR with regard to detail and acutance.

>I'll have to try Tech Pan. Is it still available? 

Unfortunately not. For fine grain I'd probably give Ilford Pan F or Delta 100 a go now (or maybe Tmax 100, though I had a problem with high contrast last time I tried it). But I have a several rolls of Efke 25 in the freezer, which is good also (and cheaper) and plan to slowly use it up.

I do have a couple of rolls of 120 Tech Pan in the freezer if anyone on this list wants it (and 3 x APX100 120 film).

>I just shot some Acros, rated 200 (push +1) with R09 (Rodinal...not normally thought of
>as a "push" developer, ordinarily thought of as a grainy, edgy 
>developer)...incredible sharpness, fine grain evident at 11X17. I
>think a little grain adds to the impression of sharpness in a print,

It does. I recommend a look at Barry Thornton's book 'Edge of Darkness' which is about acutance - an excellent read.

I have a 10x15 print shot from Fuji Neopan 100SS which sounds quite different to Across in terms of grain - it's quite grainy at that size.

Sorry if this has been a bit OT.

Richard 
--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com (Photos web site)
http://warkworth.vze.com/ (Warkworth photo essay)
http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/ (Recent work) 

   "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light 
    you shine on it, the more it will contract."
   --Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr

Thanks Paul, for taking the time and interest to respond. All very
good info.

I guess I'll just take the plunge and buy the C88 and order the EZ
inkset and give it a try.

One question, should I go straight for the refillable carts, chips,
chip resetter, and bulk ink?  Or is it best to start with pre-filled
carts?

Thanks again
Mark

I'm posting this message to thank everyone for their advice on Vista.
 For now at least, you have talked me out of going there.  THANKS! 
I'm sure I'll be better off for it.

My despair with XP was due to the fact that my one-month-old dual core
3GB machine had first become verrrry sloooowwww, then started waking
out of sleep mode with no video, gave me the "blue screen of death" a
few times, would lose the mouse when switching users, and generally
required at least 3 hard reboots a day.  My old Celeron XP machine was
looking pretty attractive.  (Yes I have and use virus and spam
software, not Symantec, and run behind a hardware firewall.)

I figured I'd need to rebuild from scratch anyway so why not really
compound my problems and try Vista. 

Anyway, a concerted effort to replace/update drivers etc. seems to
have helped a lot.  Video and mouse are behaving.  No hard reboots for
a while.  (Knock on wood!)  But performance is still nowhere near that
first glorious two weeks.

Vista... later thank you.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "markebrauer"
<markebrauer@...> wrote:

>   (Yes I have and use virus and spam
> software, not Symantec, and run behind a hardware firewall.)
> 
  But performance is still nowhere near that
> first glorious two weeks.
> 
Mark,

This may help or not. I would suggest that you search for and download
CCleaner from www.cnet.com

It's a free utility that I used at a friend's and it removed some
300mb of crap from a computer that was taking forever to start up.

And while you're at CNET, read what Robert Vamosi Senior editor, CNET
Reviews has to say about Vista.      

I know it's OT so this will be my last post on the subject.
HTH,
Andre

Mark,

>... should I go straight for the refillable carts, chips,
>chip resetter, and bulk ink? Or is it best to start with 
>pre-filled carts?

I have not compared the price of the pre-filled carts with the empties.  I
think the MIS pre-filled carts are also refillable.  So, there is some value
in eliminating the variables associated with a first effort at filling.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com